Appeal No. 2001-2416
Application No. 08/843,978
Hintze to determine the exact locations of the reference points” [final rejection-page 5].
Still further, the examiner takes Official notice “that a raster scanning of a
cathode tube under consistent timing will repetitively hit the same point at the same
moment of time each scan” [final rejection-page 6] and concludes that
[a]fter the accurate timing associated with the reference points is
determined it would be [sic, have been] obvious to base further
calculations of the present beam position on the present timing as
it corresponds to the timing of the reference timing because the
continual sampling of the spot positions deflection current would
waste resources by requiring a continual comparisons between
sampling of the deflection currents and the reference deflection
currents. The timing of the television is conventionally taken by
other systems in the display system, such as for horizontal and
vertical timing, and it would be easier to just use that timing system
and compare a measured timing to the reference timing values
rather that [sic, than] have to have a current sampling for each spot
position, thus the current sampling would only have to be done once
for each reference point, additionally means for timing are less
complicated then [sic, than] accurate current sampling means
[final rejection-page 6].
The examiner states that “if the correction values are based on position of the
spot on the screen and the spot on the screen is a function of time, and there is a linear
relationship between correction values and the spot on the screen, then there would be
a linear relationship between the timing of the spot and the correction values” [final
rejection-pages 6-7] and, therefore, “it would have been obvious...to realize the claimed
means for calculating the spot position indication signal has predetermined position
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007